Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Grok Build 0.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Updated October 2, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
Mistral
36.17/100
Estimated · Public rank #140
Conditional range 21.8–50.5
- Shared results
- 1
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 0
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
25.2Grok Build 0.125.3Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Shared
6 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Grok Build 0.1
- 27.8
- Estimated · #87/119
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 19.3
- Supported · #99/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Grok Build 0.1
- 25.2
- Estimated · #106/144
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 25.3
- Estimated · #105/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 69.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 56.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 32.9
- Supported · #124/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 82.6
- #46/125
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok Build 0.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 27.8Estimated · #87/119 | 19.3Supported · #99/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 25.2Estimated · #106/144 | 25.3Estimated · #105/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 69.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 56.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 32.9Supported · #124/171 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 82.6#46/125 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.002
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.056
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.08
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.405
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGrok Build 0.1Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok Build 0.1
256K
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
256K
API model ID
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok Build 0.1
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not published
Documented inputs
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok Build 0.1
Non-Reasoning
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
License
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Release date
Grok Build 0.1
2026-05-20
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
2026-04-29
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.056 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.08 vs $0.405.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Grok Build 0.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Grok Build 0.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 25.3 to 25.2. Grok Build 0.1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Build 0.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 27.8 to 19.3. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Grok Build 0.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1 and $0.00525 on Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; repository review costs $0.056 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.08 and $0.405. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Grok Build 0.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGrok Build 0.149.15%Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.10%Grok Build 0.1 leads this result
τ³-bench results
Grok Build 0.1—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Grok Build 0.1—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
7 public results · 1 shared
Watch Grok Build 0.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026